homepage Welcome to WebmasterWorld Guest from 54.167.10.244
register, free tools, login, search, pro membership, help, library, announcements, recent posts, open posts,
Become a Pro Member

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
Forum Library, Charter, Moderators: mademetop

General Search Engine Marketing Issues Forum

This 72 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 72 ( 1 2 [3]     
The Ultimate SEO Guide for 2009
pageoneresults




msg:3810497
 4:02 pm on Dec 18, 2008 (gmt 0)

HTML and XHTML Techniques for WCAG 2.0
[w3.org...]

The above link provides "everything" you need to know about on page SEO. If you see anything that was missed, please do speak up!

It is like the Digital Encyclopedia of SEO. Be prepared to spend about 6-8 hours of "initial" reading, following links, using your back button, etc. After you have read the entire document and "all" linked references, I will Certify you as an SEO. Along with myself. :)

 

phranque




msg:3852828
 2:56 am on Feb 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

dibbern2, this is a good place to start:
site:webmasterworld.com htc solution from Peterned - Google Search [google.com]

CainIV




msg:3852918
 6:11 am on Feb 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Nice post Page. I am going to disagree here and point out a few things, if anything, because that read went down like warm milk with butter and honey.

The document reads much more like a definite guide to html and elements that it does as the Ultimate SEO Guide to html.

Sure, proper usage of elements is important for many reasons. Unfortunately, I would have to say that it plays a relatively small part in what we would deem 'effective SEO' today. <Feel free to present arguments here>

If anything, I see the layout of the website as whole, as it relates to how documents reference each other as a much more important factor. In fact, at the moment, I see website layout with the proper inbounds trumping on-page "anything" including proper use of elements.

Not to say that the resource isn't extremely helpful for some of us who work in the more competitive genres and need the edge (in addition to the fact that we love this stuff)

Feel free share your thoughts....

pageoneresults




msg:3853109
 2:27 pm on Feb 19, 2009 (gmt 0)

Nice post Page.

Thank you!

I am going to disagree here and point out a few things, if anything, because that read went down like warm milk with butter and honey.

Hmmm, I'm thinking about that one...

The document reads much more like a definite guide to html and elements that it does as the Ultimate SEO Guide to html.

Yes, I'll agree, it "would" read that way to someone not familiar with the finer intricacies of document structure. :)

Unfortunately, I would have to say that it plays a relatively small part in what we would deem 'effective SEO' today.

Ya, zeus already confirmed that SEO is Dead or almost dead anyway.

<Feel free to present arguments here>

Hmmm, I thought that is what this topic is all about? Plus I have a load of others that I can refer you to.

In fact, at the moment, I see website layout with the proper inbounds trumping on-page "anything" including proper use of elements.

Ya, we know given the proper circumstances that links can trump on page anything. But, what if you were to take the links and then add all this Micro SEO? What happens then?

Feel free share your thoughts...

Heh, you should know better than to bait me with a closing line like that! I think you know by know that I WILL share my thoughts.

I'm going to approach this topic from the premise that SEO is Dead as both you and zeus have claimed. Are there any others who wish to jump on the SEO is Dead Bandwagon? I know we have names like Dvorak, that Jason guy, etc. We'll just keep adding names to the list as they chime in here. :)

By the way, the SEO IS DEAD topic is over here...

S E O is D E A D
[webmasterworld.com...]

Bethlk




msg:3853730
 6:42 am on Feb 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Oh My! After finding this thread, I am going to have to call in sick at my "real" job for the next week, so I have time to read all this info posted - Thanks everyone, good stuff :)

CainIV




msg:3853755
 7:43 am on Feb 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

Hmmm, I thought that is what this topic is all about? Plus I have a load of others that I can refer you to.

No, it would appear this topic was about your sense that that document is the Ultimate Guide to SEO for 2009:)

Which is what I am debating. Only under the smallest subset of circumstances IMHO would two websites ever be so close in on page and off page factors that those elements would truly come into effect. Micro, sure, but micro at a 1/1,000,000 level since one or two strong links in either direction would trump all of those factors.

I would suggest the Ultimate SEO Guide for 2009 should include Page taxonomy as it refers to how documents link to each other,support themes based on long tail graduating up to the most generic topic at the homepage, no?

[edited by: CainIV at 7:44 am (utc) on Feb. 20, 2009]

onboxes




msg:3853794
 8:54 am on Feb 20, 2009 (gmt 0)

this is really cool

docbird




msg:3854464
 2:12 am on Feb 21, 2009 (gmt 0)

the Ultimate SEO Guide for 2009 should include Page taxonomy as it refers to how documents link to each other...

Had occurred to me, too; not that I know so much re SEO.
As SEO is DEAD - Long Live SEO! - thread shows, SEO is complex, subject to changing over time. Ultimate guide for 2009 should therefore include latest re inbound and internal links, more re social sites and so forth. So I hope some webworld experts will chip in with some juicy posts on such matters...
- also ideal if this thread were to stay open for the year, with occasional informative posts distilling latest thinking. Ah, can but dream, while also being grateful for info here already.
:)

Import Export




msg:3854917
 7:31 pm on Feb 21, 2009 (gmt 0)


P1, you never cease buddy :)

LiamMcGee




msg:3856473
 10:02 am on Feb 24, 2009 (gmt 0)


I would avoid using headings for navigation on the whole. The headings should be about the specific content of the page, not the architecture of the site overall. Keep the navigation in an unordered list.

Ouch! That one is going to cause some stir. I do believe many of us have followed the long standing suggestions of placing menu items in lists and preceding them with headings if they are within a left/right navigation menu. Interesting that you would avoid headings in this instance as I see the assistive technologies rely on these to help define structure for the user. We'll definitely need to expand on this one. How would you precede a list of links that define a section? For example, you have 5 links in one section, 5 in another and 5 in another. They are three distinct sections that all have a root level Table of Contents and fall under a specific category. How would you label those lists?

Hi POR - to clarify, I would not use headings to denote individual nav elements - no problem with putting a heading referring to the nav as a whole.

pageoneresults




msg:3856478
 10:12 am on Feb 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

the Ultimate SEO Guide for 2009 should include Page taxonomy as it refers to how documents link to each other.

Ya, that one is coming! It's only 2009 February, I have a few more months to add content. ;)

P1, you never cease buddy

Just want to thank everyone for their comments.

No problem with putting a heading referring to the nav as a whole.

Whew! You really had me sweating bullets there. I feel whole now. :)

In reference to taxonomy, I've got lots to share in that area. At least from my perspective. I will tell you that I like "very short" URI structures. I prefer single word taxonomy but will accept a hyphen or two if absolutely necessary. I'll usually stay within one to two sub-directories for primary content. I can easily go 10 directories deep but that would make the URI a bit unfriendly so I like to keep them somewhat shallow.

http://example.com/sub/file
http://example.com/sub/file-file
http://example.com/sub-sub/file
http://example.com/sub-sub/file-file

I like URI brevity. Now that I've been dabbling in Social Media, I'm finding my URI strategies to be of major importance. Short URIs and short click paths rock!

Edited for a single typo, arrrggghhh!

[edited by: pageoneresults at 10:29 am (utc) on Feb. 24, 2009]

LiamMcGee




msg:3856482
 10:24 am on Feb 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Only under the smallest subset of circumstances IMHO would two websites ever be so close in on page and off page factors that those elements would truly come into effect. Micro, sure, but micro at a 1/1,000,000 level since one or two strong links in either direction would trump all of those factors.

I would suggest the Ultimate SEO Guide for 2009 should include Page taxonomy as it refers to how documents link to each other,support themes based on long tail graduating up to the most generic topic at the homepage, no?

I guess (and WCAG2.0 does have alittle to say about this in any case - see [w3.org...] - you will notice a sparsity of techniques here... your chance to add your own to the doc and be famous (kinda) forever! (see earlier in this thread for more details, folks), but this is about your first step in the journey... and one you must get right, too.

Evidence from large and small clients strongly suggests that the structured 'on-page SEO' referred to on this thread is *essential* to strong performance in Google. Essential, but not sufficient on its own. So, to do well you need it, but you also need content, in-links etc.

But realistically, if you are serious about being good at SEO, *have* to be good at structuring your web pages clearly and meaningfully. Google really does care about the meaning in those pages, not just what other people are saying about you.

BIG SITES

For example, any existing large brand in the marketplace will already have a load of in-links. Often, the most effective improvement they can make to Google traffic will be to improve the structure of the site to get the real benefit out of the reputation they already possess - exactly what POR has been talking about.

LITTLE SITES

For small or start-up sites, it's a different issue - how to get Google's attention when you don't have the in-links yet. Getting good links in takes time, so what can you do right away to lift your traffic? Answer - give Google what it wants in terms of content and structure. Follow the rules in WCAG2.0 and you will be much of the way there in terms of structure. So then all you need to do is write brilliant copy.

TECHNICAL PERFECTION => GOOD USER EXPERIENCE => MORE IN LINKS

There is a further 'halo effect' - attention to technical detail was highly correlated with good user experience in our research. I would argue from there that good user experience is highly likely to correlate with strong inlink generation (i.e. good, editorial, voluntary, non spammy).

Yes, reputation (i.e. in-links) is critical, but you need reputation *and* great content *and* superb technical visibility to compete with the big boys.

LiamMcGee




msg:3856483
 10:26 am on Feb 24, 2009 (gmt 0)

Short URIs and short click paths rock!

Yes. I blush to look at the WCAG ones. But there was a lot of stuff to cover!

This 72 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 72 ( 1 2 [3]
Global Options:
 top home search open messages active posts  
 

Home / Forums Index / Marketing and Biz Dev / General Search Engine Marketing Issues
rss feed

All trademarks and copyrights held by respective owners. Member comments are owned by the poster.
Home ¦ Free Tools ¦ Terms of Service ¦ Privacy Policy ¦ Report Problem ¦ About ¦ Library ¦ Newsletter
WebmasterWorld is a Developer Shed Community owned by Jim Boykin.
© Webmaster World 1996-2014 all rights reserved